CHS might be in the minority but we kind of like the old pictures of Capitol Hill when the street foliage was still spindly — and sometimes not even planted yet.
Capitol Hill’s urban jungle — especially in the north — is pretty thick. The City of Seattle is revamping its rules around these “street trees” and holding a meeting Thursday night at Miller Community Center to talk about the proposals with residents.
Here’s a report on the first session of the meetings from our friends at the West Seattle Blog:
The proposed new ordinance clarifies areas of responsibility, and will go further to define what a homeowner is able to do (such as pruning of branches less than 2” in diameter, or pruning of branches greater than 2” in diameter with a permit) and it defines when a certified arborist needs to be used.
Tree protection is of utmost importance, and the ordinance will place stricter fines on the destruction of trees, either during construction, or removal without a permit.
Check out the link above — you might be surprised how much discussion the topic has generated.
On Capitol Hill, the discussion will likely turn more to preservation. Just recently the 230 Broadway development project was able to — legally we’re told — remove street trees along E Thomas. It may have been legal but it generated a small flurry of protest with some landing in our inbox. Full details on the meeting are below:
Community Meetings Address Proposed Street Tree Ordinance
The Seattle Department of Transportation is seeking community feedback regarding protecting
and preserving street trees. A street tree is defined as any tree growing in a city right-of-way,
whether it is improved or unproved. In 2007 SDOT, together with nine other city departments,
contributed to the development of Seattle’s first strategic plan for managing the urban forest.
The Urban Forest Management Plan sets forth the goal of achieving 30 percent tree canopy
cover by 2037 to increase the environmental, social, and economic benefits that trees bring to
Seattle residents. The Street Tree Ordinance is one of the tools that can help the city ensure that
this goal is achieved.
The proposed ordinance will address tree protection and preservation; restrictions on tree
removal; requirements for replacements; new requirements for private tree companies; and will
strengthen penalties for violations. The proposed draft ordinance and the Street Tree Manual can
be viewed on the Urban Forestry website:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/treeordinance.htm
Thursday, December 15
6:30 – 8:30 p.m.
Miller Community Center
330 19th Ave E
Monday, January 9
6:30 – 8:30 p.m.
Meadowbrook Community Center
10517 35th Ave NE
Room 22
Wednesday, January 11
6:30 – 8:30 p.m.
Ballard Community Center
6020 28th Ave NW
Sunset Room
I was totally shocked to see the missing trees on the north end of the new site where the Old Bof A building was at. it is a full block site, big project.
And lo and behold, the trees there across the side street from Julia’s, the nice 30-40 year old trees are gone. Gone. Cut down. Stumps.
Why? The were in the parking strip, outside the sidewalk. I can see pruning them back, but, cannot fathom why they cut them down.
That was a great shady nook in the summer, now bare.
Going to the hearing to offer my support for more rigid rules about cutting existing trees on PUBLIC space, any public space.
Legal or not legal, the builder is NOT a good neighbor.
Looks like a systematic pro-developer rule that’s in the works.
At the northeast corner of Belmont & Republican (site of the former “biohazard” house) the four big trees in the planting strip are going to be toast when the oversized apartment building goes up on that corner.
Urban trees are really tricky. If they’re of a variety that grows too high, they get into the wires and become a hazard. If the roots grow out at the surface, they can ruin sidewalks and crack foundations. If they are trimmed incorrectly, they can weaken and become subject to insect infestation, then you end up with goo all over the cars parked below. Some of the prettiest trees–maples, oaks, cedars–exhibit these problems, while some really awful trees, gum trees in particular, do not.
The key is choosing the right tree for the location. If you have the wrong tree, you eventually need to remove it, ideally replacing it with something appropriate. Developers are notorious for wanting to remove beautiful old trees and plant cheap, ugly varieties to make development and maintenance cheaper, and individual homeowners are notorious for planting beautiful trees that grow too big, interfere with sewers and sidewalks, etc. It’s rare that anyone takes the long view, factoring in maintenance costs 20 or 50 years down the road, or the huge value that gorgeous mature trees bring to a neighborhood–which is where well crafted legislation fits in. Let’s hope they don’t make a hash of it!
I live across the street from this development (230 Broadway) and want to add my 2 cents. The large trees along E Thomas were not particularly attractive, needed frequent prunings to clear the overhead utility wires (making the trees even more ugly), and caused massive upheaving of the planting strip. When the developer plants some new trees there, it will be an improvement, especially if they are of a certain size and are appropriate for street use.
Also, the developer was required to not touch the trees along 10th Ave E…these are flowering trees and very beautiful in springtime. The trees along the Broadway side are also being preserved..initially they were slated for removal, but after the City Arborist received many objections he changed his mind.
One problem which kind-of flies under the radar is that homeowners not infrequently decide to cut down a tree (or trees) on the planting strip (which is City property) without obtaining a permit….and this is done usually for selfish reasons. They rarely plant another tree unless the City Arborist receives a complaint, and then all he can do is request the homeowner to remove the stump and re-plant….the current statutes do not allow him to enforce compliance, so I hope this will change with the proposed regulations.
Seattle has lost something like 30% of its “tree canopy” in the past few decades. This trend needs to be reversed.
You seem to be a big supporter, then you depict the trees at the construction site as less than “perfect” – thus OK to cut down.
I have great respect for all trees, and a variety, vast variety. Less than perfect is OK, even if they require some special attention, like the right prune.
Pick and choose policy leaves the public at disadvantage – I want strict no, no and no. Then if needed, replace and pay, pay, pay.
I think we need to get the word our all over the city about these hearings – ready, set, go.
I know a reporter …. and several friends have blogs and FB, too …
I think there is a place for removing trees on public property, but there should be a damn good reason for doing so. The City authorizes removal, under permit, if the tree is in very poor condition/dying and/or if it is recurring problem for utility wires…as was the case for the trees along E Thomas at the 230 Broadway development…so I think in that case it was a reasonable decision. And the City will be real sure that those trees are replaced.
In contrast, when homeowners cut down trees on the planting strip (without a permit), it is usually for very questionable, self-interested reasons….and often the tree is not replaced. I am adamantly opposed to this, and hopeful that new, stronger regulations will bring a halt to this practice.
When I was a child ( 1950s) my Grandfather use to take me to Volunteer Park, and I always admired the tree lined streets surrounding the park. They reminded me of films I had seen of New England streets, and I could not understand why so much of the remainder of Seattle neighborhoods were treeless or at least treeless along the streets. It was not until the late 1960s and early 1970 that people began to take action to plant curb trees. It did not take long before these trees grew and spread to shade our streets, and yards. Problm was that little planning had gone into what type of trees or where the best planting for vatious trypes might be best. Seems many people had planted fast growing trees that maybe became hazards in a few years, or trees that grew into power lines and water or serwer pipes, etc. It was not until late 1990 or 2000 that most of use became aware of ordinances requiring permits to plant curb trees, and that our city Arborists offered advice on type of trees for each area.
I note that previous bloggers have identified some ( now removed ) trees as having been great for shade, but due to their growth pattern had required frequent pruning to prevent damage to power lines. With so many new opportunities to plan for long term tree plantings, I think it is great we Seattle residents are becoming more aware of these natural resources, and want sustainable planting in the future.
I still think back to the original Volunteer Park planners, and the long term view they took in planting trees that grew too slow for them to be able to fully enjoy, but then they knew all along that you and I (imagined future generations), would benefit from their forsight. Wouldn’t it be great if you and I ( current generation of Seattle residents) joined collectively in the current ordinance review of future tree planting requirements, with a similar far sighted goal?